http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061213/ap_on_...tainees_lawsuit

 

 

BRAVO!

Horrible ruling. Hopefully the Supreme Court Hamdan group winds up overturning it.

Couple of key points mentioned in the article

Though Robertson originally sided with Hamdan, he said that he no longer had jurisdiction to hear Hamdan's case because Congress clearly intended to keep such disputes out of federal courts. He said foreigners being held in overseas military prisons do not have the right to challenge their detention, a right people inside the country normally enjoy.

"This is the first time in the history of this country that a court has held that a man may be held by our government in a place where no law applies," said Barbara Olshansky, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has handled many detainee cases.

 

Amazing

Couple of key points mentioned in the article

Amazing

I don't find it amazing, they've been insisting for 5 years that they need to be able to hold people indefinately without charges or access to their lawyers or the red cross or without being tortured on the word of only the executive branch or we'll all wind up dead. And they finally got their last Congress of no resistance to insert wording preventing the legislative branch from ruling on it, unless the Supreme Court decides to overturn that language.

Edited December 14, 200619 yr by Balta1701

The court of previous years might have overturned it with Oconnor but with Alito and Roberts on board I dont think they will.

We tell the world to look to us for justice and a shining example of rights of individuals, etc. Somehow I feel we are being hypocrites when we don't live up to that.

Free Saddam!!!

 

http://www.petitiononline.com/freeiraq/petition.html

 

you know you want to.

Free Saddam!!!

 

http://www.petitiononline.com/freeiraq/petition.html

 

you know you want to.

Considering the other options in Iraq....

Victory for BushCo, yes.

 

And another devastating body blow to America's image as the former champion of human rights and dignity.

devastating body blow to America's image as the former champion of human rights and dignity.

 

 

You know you stole that line from Kofi. admit it.

 

 

Considering the other options in Iraq....

 

 

hey, lets just throw another 100,000,000,000 at Iraq. that should fix things.

 

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....=rss&rpc=22

Edited December 14, 200619 yr by mr_genius

Victory for BushCo, yes.

 

And another devastating body blow to America's image as the former champion of human rights and dignity.

I shoulda been Kofi's speech writer.

Victory for BushCo, yes.

 

And another devastating body blow to America's image as the former champion of human rights and dignity.

 

 

More like a devastating body blow to those who feel that coddling terrorists and bending over back asswards for people who want to kill us will somehow make them be nice to us.

More like a devastating body blow to those who feel that coddling terrorists and bending over back asswards for people who want to kill us will somehow make them be nice to us.

 

incorrect.

More like a devastating body blow to those who feel that coddling terrorists and bending over back asswards for people who want to kill us will somehow make them be nice to us.

 

I didn't realize they had been found guilty of terrorism. For some reason I thought that had not been determined, that they had been arrested, but not tried. I take back what I said. Since innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our judicial system, and we are trying to show the world a better way, I can't believe we would just lock them up without finding them guilty in a fair trial. I feel better now knowing they are indeed guilty of being a terrorist.

 

It would have been so hypocritical of us to just lock someone up without any trial. That would seem more like something Hussein would have done in Iraq, and probably torture them as well. Thank God we're a better country than that.

If this means that Jack Bauer can finally do his job without worrying about silly laws then I'm all for it!

I'm really divided on this issue. We do need the means to protect the homeland and we should do what it takes to do so. However, putting unchecked power in anyone's hands is an invitation to disaster. The setting of precedence also concerns me. I don't give a rats ass about those guys pulled off the battlefields of Afghanistan or Iraq. They can rot for all I care. Yet, we have encountered a US citizen or two over there and they should never be denied their constitutional rights. This is like swimming across the everglades ... if we make it through without getting bit, we'll be damn lucky.

I'm really divided on this issue. We do need the means to protect the homeland and we should do what it takes to do so. However, putting unchecked power in anyone's hands is an invitation to disaster. The setting of precedence also concerns me. I don't give a rats ass about those guys pulled off the battlefields of Afghanistan or Iraq. They can rot for all I care. Yet, we have encountered a US citizen or two over there and they should never be denied their constitutional rights. This is like swimming across the everglades ... if we make it through without getting bit, we'll be damn lucky.

That's a pretty good summary.

That's a pretty good summary.

 

Yes it is, but allow me to toss a log on

 

The reason to not give them a trial is the government does not trust our legal system. Pure and simple. The same system we use to put US citizens to death, can not be used to try these people. Isn't that interesting. The same people here who cheer when some US citizen is given a fair trial and sentenced to death, somehow don't trust the same system in this case. And I don't buy the "they don't have rights" argument, we offer those rights to anyone who commits a crime on American soil.

 

If the system is robust and sound enough to use it to kill US Citizens, then why isn't it good enough for these people?

Congratulations, BushCo. You found a judge who agrees with your "strategery" of holding people in some sort of legal stasis, not to be regulated or governed by any U.S. Court, nor held to the Geneva Conventions on combatants. Another muddy footprint on the Constitution. Wonderful.

 

It should be noted, by the way, that this ruling does NOT say that the detainees shouldn't be protected by conventions (Geneva, UN, our own military) as prisoners of war. That is the other sane alternative here, although BushCo may insist that doesn't apply either.

 

Nuke, I know you don't like these guys, and neither do I. But do you not see the danger in allowing the executive branch to do a daylight end-around of protective processes, and hold people in the tank forever?

Congratulations, BushCo. You found a judge who agrees with your "strategery" of holding people in some sort of legal stasis, not to be regulated or governed by any U.S. Court, nor held to the Geneva Conventions on combatants. Another muddy footprint on the Constitution. Wonderful.

 

It should be noted, by the way, that this ruling does NOT say that the detainees shouldn't be protected by conventions (Geneva, UN, our own military) as prisoners of war. That is the other sane alternative here, although BushCo may insist that doesn't apply either.

 

Nuke, I know you don't like these guys, and neither do I. But do you not see the danger in allowing the executive branch to do a daylight end-around of protective processes, and hold people in the tank forever?

 

I don't see where OUR constitution should apply to these people in any way, shape or form ... unless they are US citizens. The Geneva convention is for uniformed personal. If you are caught spying while blending into the populace, not in uniform ... you are S.O.L. as far as Geneva is concerned. These people, and I used the word loosely here, are not in the uniform of any nation's military. Geneva does not apply.

I don't see where OUR constitution should apply to these people in any way, shape or form ... unless they are US citizens. The Geneva convention is for uniformed personal. If you are caught spying while blending into the populace, not in uniform ... you are S.O.L. as far as Geneva is concerned. These people, and I used the word loosely here, are not in the uniform of any nation's military. Geneva does not apply.

Then find out what does apply. And it sure as heck isn't infinite and unregulated detainment. That is not OK, it stands counter to what our country is supposed to stand for, and it makes us look like buffoons to everyone else. We can't go criticizing China for their human rights violations when we decide that some people in our custody get no rights at all.

Then find out what does apply. And it sure as heck isn't infinite and unregulated detainment. That is not OK, it stands counter to what our country is supposed to stand for, and it makes us look like buffoons to everyone else. We can't go criticizing China for their human rights violations when we decide that some people in our custody get no rights at all.

 

Sorry, I don't care about the human rights of terrorists. They want to kill us. That's all I need to know.

Sorry, I don't care about the human rights of terrorists. They want to kill us. That's all I need to know.

See, to me, this country and the Constitution are great because of the protections put in place for those we hate. Fair trials for all. Nazis can have their picnics. People can express dissent.

 

I'm not saying these guys should go free. I am saying that it is our responsibility as a nation to not stoop to the level of our enemies.

See, to me, this country and the Constitution are great because of the protections put in place for those we hate. Fair trials for all. Nazis can have their picnics. People can express dissent.

 

I'm not saying these guys should go free. I am saying that it is our responsibility as a nation to not stoop to the level of our enemies.

 

And I'm talking about the kind of people that will slit a reporters throat on camera and braodcast the tape across the world or the type of people that will hang and burn the bodies of non-combatants from a bridge. The type of people that will drag the beheaded bodies of American's through the street. The are not deserving of the protections of OUR constitution and have no legitimate claim to those protecetions. The method of war that they have chosen to wage denies them the protections of the Geneva convention. They made their choices and they started this s*** by slaughtering nearly 3000 of our citizens. As far as their human rights are concerned, I could care less. f*** them!

And I'm talking about the kind of people that will slit a reporters throat on camera and braodcast the tape across the world or the type of people that will hang and burn the bodies of non-combatants from a bridge. The type of people that will drag the beheaded bodies of American's through the street. The are not deserving of the protections of OUR constitution and have no legitimate claim to those protecetions. The method of war that they have chosen to wage denies them the protections of the Geneva convention. They made their choices and they started this s*** by slaughtering nearly 3000 of our citizens. As far as their human rights are concerned, I could care less. f*** them!

Post of the year, right there.

 

But of course, wa wa waaaaaaahh we have to "protect" these jerks to "rise above it all". Look, indefinite imprisonment is too good for these guys, they'll get treated better in our prisons then they will outside of it. I do NOT condone torture or any of that garbage, but otherwise, let them sit.